Time and time again I hear about people who say they’d cycle to work, to do their shopping and for other activities more often – if only it were safer. Now of course a certain proportion of those people may just be using safety as an excuse for simply not getting into the habit of it (I’d probably fall into that category), but it cannot be doubted that the perception of cycling being dangerous is a major barrier to increasing the number of people who cycle. In many cases, that perception is reinforced by reality, but I would argue that it is the perception of cycling being unsafe that is the biggest barrier – regardless of the actual statistics of how likely it would be to get knocked off by a car, injured or even killed.
In response to this matter, we have a seen a number of “off-road” cycleways develop in Auckland over the past few years – the most well-known one probably being the Northwest Cycleway, that runs alongside the Northwest Motorway for most of its length. NZTA were planning to extend the city end of that cycleway through spaghetti junction and down to the university a while back, but it seems like there’s been little progress on that at all in recent times – which is unfortunate. In general, these “off-road” cycleways have been very successful, probably because they can deal to the issue of perceived safety. When you’re on the cycleway you’re completely out of the zone that cars are travelling in: there’s simply no way a car could take you out unless it did something really random and drove through the fence on the SH16 causeway.
I’m a huge fan of cycleways like the northwest one, but we must recognise that it’s hardly likely to be possible to put these in too many places around Auckland. I guess in some senses they’re the cycling “motorways” or the cycling “rapid transit network”, that requires support and feeders from arterials – situations where we need to find a way to make arterial roads and good cycling infrastructure work constructively together. In most cases in Auckland, what you find are the kind of cycle lanes that exist along Carrington Road and Mt Albert Road:
Certainly the green paint and the white lines and the cycle lanes signs are better than nothing. No doubt about that. But, I do wonder what extent these measures contribute to actually making cycling feel safer for your average commuter – not just your lycra-clad road warrior. I get the feeling your average commuter might be rather intimidated by having to dodge buses at the side of the road all the time and may not feel too comfortable sitting in front of a whole queue of traffic at the intersection.
Fundamentally, I wonder whether cycling needs to be brought out of the road environment to a greater extent, and brought more into the pedestrian environment. Obviously that potentially generates a series of problems of its own – although the chances of a fatal accident between a cyclist and a pedestrian seem relatively low compared to accidents involving cars. I get the feeling that the more we can provide a hard barrier between cyclists and motorists, the more likely it is that we will encourage a wider range of people to commute by bicycle.
When I visited Montreal in Canada last year, I noticed a variety of ways in which they have provided cycling infrastructure:
In many ways the second image is by far the more interesting, because it shows how you can change a road around without having to mess with the kerbs (therefore it’s cheap) while still providing a superb-quality piece of cycling infrastructure. In this case the on-street parking works in your favour – acting as an excellent buffer zone between moving vehicles and cyclists, putting the cyclists in the pedestrian realm to a much greater extent, yet still keeping them fairly obviously separated from pedestrians. Auckland could do with a lot more cycle lanes such as this one (although visibility may be an issue where you have many driveways).
A great little video on streetfilms looks at a number of different methods being tried out in US cities to encourage people to cycle more – generally with fantastic results:
The key message I get from this video is the need to provide proper separation of cyclists and vehicles. While the “Mt Albert Road” style cycle lanes in Auckland might actually make people safer, I don’t know the extent to which they make people feel safer, and therefore I don’t know how much of a difference they’ve made to cyclist numbers along this road. When it comes to issues like safety, perception is reality in many ways – if people don’t think it’s safe to cycle then they won’t. Changing the perception is extremely important, and while we still continue to mix together cyclists with cars, I don’t think we’re going to get very far in changing the perception that cycling is dangerous.
I have recently returned to Auckland from living in London. Something that I found very interesting about how London has done some of its cycleways (especially in West London) is that there is a lot of cycle lanes that go through little side streets that run parallel to a main road (effectively not mixing with general traffic). The side streets can be dead-end streets for cars, but allow cyclists to link from street to street. This results in a very direct route for the cyclist (not having to travel too far out of his way) to take a cycleway that is pretty much devoid of cars while being a pretty cheap alternative.
At one stage I was riding 25km each way to work and spent the vast majority of the time on a cycleway in a sidestreet (or dedicated pedestrian walkway/cycleway). I must say I felt a lot safer riding in London as opposed to riding in Auckland. I ride 5 minutes to work here in Auckland and am almost hit by a car on a weekly basis. I definitely would not attempt to ride any great distance in Auckland city to work for fear of being hit.
Yes this is interesting. I live in London, there’s much less roadspace, but strangely cars and cyclists seem to co-exist reasonably well. (Drivers can be pretty considerate of cyclists i’d say) I havent seen that much in the way of extensive cycle lanes in greater London. The ‘cycle superhighway’ in South London is essentially just a lot of blue paint crisscrossing with roadspace and bus lanes. I do think this does make drivers incredibly aware of the fact that there will be plenty of cyclists sharing the road space.
Re Auckland, if there were more Mt Albert Rd style lanes on the roads, it’d do wonders for cycling, I reckon. Auckland drivers do need a mental shift though, and have to accept that they are sharing the road with cyclists and to take extra care.
@AC I agree that London has done a lot of its cycle lanes quite badly, but it is amazing that the cyclists and motorists actually share the road space quite well in London. I think the main reason is (like some others have already stated) that in London, drivers are fair more used to sharing the road space with cyclists, pedestrians etc.
In New York, the Department of Transportation often cites statistics (which I have never seen) stating that segregated, arterial cycle ways like the one in Montreal are actually more dangerous than painted, on-road ones. The arguement goes that cyclists are more often hit when exiting intersections by turning vehicles that do see them. The reason given for this is that the entirely separate paths do not enforce a constant, mutual awareness until both vehicle and cyclist are suddenly upon the same intersection. Cycling advocates in NY never liked this rationale, which is often used to deny installation of more expensive and segregated cycle ways. However, having cycled extensively in NY, the arguement does make intuitive sense.
Its interesting as based on what they’ve built lately (i.e. the Prospect Park West seperated bike lanes) they’ve switched that since Sadik-Khan arrived. Then again it might have been like that under the office of former transport commissioner Iris Weinshall who also happens to be part of Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes (i.e. no bike lanes) group who are fighting against the the PPW bike lanes.
Anyway, back on topic properly. The way I look at it as a ‘lycra-clad road warrior’ is that for someone like me the status quo is generally ok, however if we’re really to increase cycling rates we need to build things that my mid-60′s aged mother would be happy to use, which we don’t currently have. The only caveat I’d have is that we’re not forced to use them.
Personally I like the concept of the separated cycleways by hard barriers like you show in Montreal. I think the local reason that would be given to discount them as needed is that one of the major reason they’re installed in Montreal so that they’re visible during 6 to 8 months of the year when snow obscures paint markings (and yes I’ve seen people riding when the temperature is -20°C and plenty of snow and ice on the ground in other parts of Canada).
@GMoney,
This is the same approach used in many parts of Vancouver, (being a Nth American City it is has a grid layout)
So many of the cycle routes are the next street up or down from the main throughfare and they essentially residential neighbourhoods.
I think a good start would be for NZ driver training to include more cycling awareness as is the norm in places like Germany, I can’t honestly remember really very much at all discussion about other road users when learning to drive in NZ. I find that when cycling in cities without much cycling infrastructure, the attitue of drivers is what makes it feel either very safe or unsafe. My experiences in Auckland were generally quite negative, I also used to ride a scooter in town and met some pretty agressive drivers on occassion. I think making drivers in NZ realise that they don’t ‘own’ the roads is an important attitude change, perhaps a sign of a more mature city, that is needed.
I think a good start would be for NZ to have driver training! It’s not mandatory at present to learn from anyone or anything.
In theory you could live on a farm, teach yourself the mechanics of driving without an instructor because you’re never on the road, catch a bus to (or be dropped off to or picked up by) an AA testing instructor who provides the car, and get your restricted. You haven’t broken a single law, but you’ve never been instructed by anyone. It’s unlikely, but it’s possible and it’s legal. That must change before we’re to have a long-term chance of tackling our awful national driving record.
Spot on. I think a minimum 10 hours with a qualified instructor, and the defensive driving course should be mandatory.
This animation (click on each mode) on Understanding Uncertainty, a site run by the Statistical Laboratory in the University of Cambridge shows the micromorts associated with various modes of transport in the UK. One micromort is equal to one chance in a million of death. In the UK at least it looks as though the risks of both cycling and walking are real when compared with travelling by car.
I’ve had some experience with the type of cycle way that is a two way path on one side of the road, separated from general traffic by a lane of parking.
I can’t see it working in Auckland, except in the very particular case where there are no side roads or driveways for long stretches… But I’m not sure if this even occurs in Auckland.
The problem with this type is a driver pullin on to the main road has two cycle lanes and a row of parked cars between them and the road, so they have little option but to pull out across the cycleway and wait for a gap in traffic where they can see past the parked cars. The sum effect of this on busy roads (like the example in st kilda Melbourne) is you end up with a perpendicular car blocking the cycleway in both directions every fifty metres or so and at every intersection.
I’ll just add that both the examples from Montreal above appear to have no driveways or little side roads.
Perhaps this could work on something like ameti however.
Came here to say this — yep, kerb cuts are a real problem with this type of bike line. I think there are some good places in WLG where you could still do it though, so there are probably some in Auckland. In Wellington I’m thinking of: Cambridge/Kent Tce, Adelaide Road, Riddiford St.
In Perth there are bikeways alongside the railways that work quite well as a kind of arterial bike highway. Maybe Auckland could run a few of these on key corridors.
Everyone has their own opinion on the best way to integrate cycling, so here’s mine:
Cyclists and cars don’t mix, but cyclists and pedestrians mix even less.
As someone who until recently cycled 30km/day from north london to east london through central london (now i have a leisurely 15km return ride), I prefer the mount albert road style you have pictured. The painted lane lets drivers know the road is not all theirs and i find they respect it and leave you space. A kerb separated lane requires more space and it’s dangerous or impossible for faster cyclists to overtake slower ones. (the speed of cyclists varies allot more than drivers)
Even better is a full bus lane (except the heavily congested ones full of taxis like euston road). I find bus drivers very respectful to cyclists.
I avoid the “cycle superhighways”, similar to the Montreal ones you have pictured, as i feel very unsafe with speeding cyclists heading in the opposite direction so close, a few cm out of line and it would be a nasty crash as you clip their handlebars. Plus pedestrians walk out in front of you all the time, and i don’t want to be responsible for maiming a pedestrian even if it is their fault.
Finally the example in your last picture i don’t think would be so cheap to develop as you need to remodel all the intersections, i.e. how would you turn left at the next T intersection across two lanes of traffic heading in opposite directions? With the Mt Albert road model all it costs is paint for a lane down the side and an advanced stop box at each set of lights.
Separation from cars. It’s essential.
I disagree Bris, as a cyclist I want to be able to just use the road like a normal road user and be treated as such by other driver, cyclists and pedestrians. I don’t want to be separated from traffic, I want to be traffic!
Saying ‘separation from cars is essential’ is just the same as saying ‘roads are for cars and cars only and cyclists need to be shepherded off elsewhere out of their way’.
If I’m popping down to the shops or out to see a friend I want to just ride to the shops or their house along the most convenient route, I’m not really interested in making detours to be corralled onto some separate lanes or whatever, I just want to use the road and share it with everyone else. Where I live this is actually quite possible, there are few mega arterials, plenty of cyclists about and drivers are quite well behaved.
Separate cycleways and the like are great for long distance commuters or scenic weekend rides, but for day to day local transport by bike being able to safely share any road should be the goal.
I don’t really mind what the message is or what it is saying. My personal view is that I don’t ride on arterial roads because they are dangerous. Trucks, buses, cars, hoons that lean out of windows and suddenly scream at you from behind or as they are going past to give you a shock, car doors that open or cars that pull out of carparks all that requires proper separation IMHO.
Separation is not a bad thing.
In some cases mixed traffic on local roads is quite safe. On arterials, absolutely not. I prefer to ride on footpaths where possible, but I have found that there is a growing number of “iDeaf” people (people deaf to cyclist bells because they are listening to iPods and have no awareness whatoever of their surrounds) which get in the way and don’t move!
Sounds like the screaming hoons and negligent car-door openers should be separated from traffic, not the cyclists!
Most arterials and major roads in the inner parts of Melbourne have the simple side of the road cycle lanes that work quite well in my opinion, I don’t see the need for separation as a rule and in some cases it could be counter productive. Look to the arguments and comments regarding Tamaki Drive with the so-called cycle lane painted on half the footpath. We had a couple of deaths last year from cyclists being smashed by errant drivers and people were writing into the paper saying “serves them right for not using the cycle path”. Some were even advocating the right to knock over any cyclists who dared use the roadway instead of the footpath.
In the Netherlands the separation works very well. And at intersections all cyclists are given the right of way. As a result nearly everyone regulary uses a bike and it accounts for probably 90+% of school transport. As I used to come from there, whenever I go back for a holiday I cant wait to just hop on a bike again, even through snowy conditions as the cycle paths are regulary scraped like the roads to get rid of the snow.
And, multi-level bike parks are common around the cities and popular rail stations. See a picure on the link. On this picture you can only see three levels but actually there is another fourth level below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_parking_lot.jpg
That last photo of the bike line includes a feature to minimise the risk of car door openers – two way bike lanes. The lane closest to the car has cycle traffic facing the car (and the passengers opening the door facing on coming cyclists). This must be a key feature of inside bike lanes.
Were you to have a cycle lane on each side of the road, inside the parked cars, the cycles would be coming up behind the cars. How many passengers know to look in the mirror (err, what mirror?) or behind before opening the door.
The two way bike lanes also allow faster bikes to pass slower bikes.
err, the bike lane, not bike line!
In an ideal world cyclists of all competencies and speed would be safe and feel safe. But as we are a long way from that ideal the point of this post is to think about ways of improving how safe cyclists feel.
Culture change can take decades. How can we boost cycling in the meanwhile? I think it must be through offering cyclists better infrastructure more separated from traffic.
“Culture change can take decades”
Auckland cannot afford to spend decades on this culture change. it is absolutely crucial. all the bs about “lycra blah blah” (it’s spandex, actually) is a straw man. ordinary mums, dads and kids and people going to their local railway station, busway station or bus centre, people going to the supermarket, the park or school or varsity need to be able to do so without being seen or branded as “freaks” or “anti-car radicals”. super-busy arterials are a problem and strategies need to be devised. but the bottom line is that car drivers have to understand that they are sharing the road with slower and less visible users and act accordingly. local and central government have to play thier parts in changing attitudes from “cyclists are a nuisance” to “their are lots of bikes around, so i have to always double check whenever i turn or open my door”.
How about simple ‘green paint’ lanes on the sides of every main road? That’s not so much separating traffic and cyclists, more about giving cyclists a bit of room and showing drivers how to share the road space.
I agree that would assist in improving the safety of existing cyclists. Is it likely to improve the perception of cycling safety among the general population? I have my doubts.
If we are to get more than the “lycra clad road warriors” cycling then I think we need to separate cycling facilities from moving vehicles.
I think it is the opposite, if we are to get more than the “lycra clad road warriors” then we need to normalise cycling into an everyday activity accessible to anybody. I’m not sure if segregating cycling into specific constrained routes makes it accessible, wouldn’t that keep it as a niche activity rather than a viable transport option?
It is obviously a chicken and egg situation. The more people you get cycling the more drivers will be aware of cyclists and the safer it will become. The problem is how to spark this situation, rather than ending up in the reverse spiral downwards.
Ultimately, we need to find ways that make people feel safe cycling. We should ask them what would make them feel safe. I suspect many would say they want to be separated from traffic. Of course nothing is stopping the lycra clad road warriors from cycling with general traffic, there’s just also a safe environment for a 10 year old kid to cycle to school.
What we saw with the Tamaki Drive fatality was a lot of drivers feel that if there’s something there for cyclists, no matter how crap, no matter how inappropriate, cyclists have whatever they get coming if they’re using the road.
I’m a recreational “lycra clad road warrior” and I routinely break 40km/h on the flat. Give me a downhill and the right wind and I can keep up with traffic on Pakuranga Rd with moderate ease. That’s not safe on a shared path, but I see no reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to go that fast on the road. However, there’ll be a lot of drivers who will scream bloody murder if there’s a path that I’m not using. They don’t care how fast I can go, and how dangerous that is to other users of the path, they just want me off “their” road.
I see the desire for separated cycling lanes, but i think it’s naive.
There’s the northern European model which is very successful, you put in comprehensive, city wide, segregated cycle lanes, that are wide enough for cyclists two abreast in each direction, with dedicated priority phasing at the lights, and you get 20%+ of commuters cycling.
But if you are not going to put in such a cycle network, what do you choose, a couple of expensive segregated lanes, which make cyclists think most roads are unsafe, and make motorists think cyclists shouldn’t be using most roads because they should only be there when they have their own lanes? Or a line down the side of all roads that have the space? The second option can cover a fair chunk of the city, make cyclists feels safe because they have their own space, and remind drivers that they share the road. It works very well in my experience, and really, even if AKL had the money to put in all the segregated lanes, with it’s hills and torrential downpours, i really don’t think you’d see enough people using them to justify it. Sure there will be some people that might cycle in a segregated lane that wont feel safe with just a painted line, but you can’t please everyone; given where we are i think it’s a better investment to spend a fixed amount of cash on a greater coverage a painted lines, so that people realise wherever they want to go they have a lane – not just one or two isolated lanes on roads they probably never use.
totally agree.
I also thought it was naive. I now realise that engineers like me can be naive too.
Trying to change perception is what we need to do, and make the best out of the dog’s breakfast that is Auckland’s current transport network. Separated cycle lanes and off-road cycleways will remain horses for courses. We cannot build them where they’d be unsafe or useless. But where they can be done safely and efficiently, they are a MUCH better investment in terms of actually attracting cyclists than many other things.
“a couple of expensive segregated lanes, which make cyclists think most roads are unsafe, and make motorists think cyclists shouldn’t be using most roads”
Dan, seeing that this is the EXISTING scenario, for both motorists and cyclists, I do not think that is a problem. If shared space and friendly cooperation was already the norm, “divide and separate” would indeed be stupid. But it’s not. We need to get the base numbers up first, then than in turn will give more impetus to shared space, sharing the road etc… via the simple fact that a) there’s now more cyclists and b) those cyclists, to get on and off the main cycleways where they are protected, will still have to ride through some parts of local roads. We need to build a case for imrovement first, and we (Cycle Action) feel that the scatter gun approach has failed. Rather concentrate your money in 2-3 routes during the coming years, so that we can create success stories like the Northwestern, and get momentum.
OK – this is going to get a lot of you hot under the collar! As a driver, I am all for keeping cyclists separate from cars – cyclists frighten the living daylights out of me! I have driven in congested city driving and open country driving and have had my fair share of close calls with cyclists – none, I am proud / disappointed to say my fault. Living in Warkworth there are a number of people that routinely cycle along the middle of the lane in a country road – they are doing 15km if that on an open limit road. If I have the misfortune to get behind one there is nothing I can do – many of these roads don’t have good visibility and most have blind bends and double yellow lines in the middle – no way I can pass a cyclist in the middle of the lane and still leave 1.5 metres. So I creep at whatever speed the cyclist determines that I must do – which I feel is a bit B****y minded! I get all sorts of arm and hand signals gesticulating that I should pass – illegally across double yellow lines! Yet not very often do these so-called road warriors consider that they should pull over so that i can pass both safely and legally. And god forbid that there should be two of them out for a spin – there is no way that they think that they should be single file.
In the city I have been terrified by the lycra-clad road warriors as they slide pass so close to my car that one false move would have us colliding. I used to drive a lot in Sydney – lots of cycle couriers there and they take no prisoners and are quite scary as they weave in and out of the traffic. As a motorist I am so conscious of how exposed cyclists are and how very alert you have to be around them as they don’t always do what a driver would expect them to do.
As for asking whether motorists get any training I sometimes wonder if cyclists get any? Is there a road test that cyclists have to sit? Do cyclists have to pay a licence to use the road like motorists? Sometimes it seems as if there is one hell of a chip on a lot of cyclists shoulders – not all motorists are speed demons and not all motorists are “out to get the cyclist”. If we have to share the road then responsibility is a two-way issue and I for one would like to see some cyclists have some consideration for motorists.
Watcher, just a couple of things from my point of view. I’m not talking about lycra’d racers or cycle couriers, I’m talking about normal folks going about their business on a bicycle instead of a car, bus or on foot. Granted that doesn’t really seem to happen in Auckland but here in Melbourne (parts at least) it is normal for people to use bikes for general transport.
As for licences and road tests, I think you’ll find that every adult cyclist does have a license and has had to sit a couple of tests on the road code to get it.
“Do cyclists have to pay a licence to use the road like motorists?”
Relevance to cyclist safety?… Zero. But it is one of the standard arguments that the road rage brigade roll out to attempt to prioritise themselves over cyclists.
If it isn’t safe to pass a cyclist then wait until it is. Driving at 15km/hr for a few minutes isn’t going to hurt you. Do you object to having you journey interrupted at times while pedestrians use crossings?
Or simpler – what happens when our friend Watcher comes around the blind corner and there is a broken down horse float, or cows crossing. I’d suggest a squished Watcher.
Best thing to do – drive to the conditions as the law requires everyone to do.
Anyway, cyclists aren’t scary. Scary is crackhead bogans thinking its a great idea to do 120k directly at you headon while passing a line of cars and still being fully on your side of the road while you’re essentially in the ditch.
Now THAT is genuinely scary!
Matt, as a fellow ‘road warrior’ (I hate terms like that, I’m just a guy who happens to ride a bike pretty fast a long way) you couldn’t pay me to ride most of Pakuranga Rd. The place is a death-trap, especially that little climb from the mall past St Kents. Far too many bogans on that road doing 80 in a 60 with no shoulder.
I’d rate Howick/Pakuranga as probably the worst place to ride in Auckland with possibly Great North Rd in Glendene as a close-ish 2nd.
When do cyclists start paying for their infrastructure? Currently they receive a 100% subsidy from other road users.
iD suggest the government tackle this at the same time as they introduce user pays for pedestrians
and here I was thinking we lived in a civilised country. I’d like to see car users pay for their full share of the pollution, health costs, noise etc etc that they presently pay nothing for. I don’t see anyone promoting that.
You, again. I can’t tell if you’re a troll, or a particularly nasty example of the “It’s my road, get the hell off it!” driver mentality.
At least he isn’t displaying his usual ‘law fail’. He has ‘cost fail’ this time though.
Geoff – I suggest looking at who pays for local roads in Auckland. It certainly isn’t the motorist at the petrol pump.
Geoff, cyclists pay for their infrastructure out of rates mostly, with some contribution from income tax and GST. Same way motorists pay for local roads, same way walkers pay for the footpath, same way we all pay for street lighting and all the rest of it.
Bus lanes are actually worse for casual cyclists. A 10 tonne bus is a lot bigger and noisier (and spouts a lot more toxic black diesel fumes) than a car.
I guess i’m spoilt in london, no black fumes here, the buses are mostly brand-new and they have particulate filters to collect the crap and take it back to the depot.
The main luxury of bus lanes however, which should still be true in AKL, is compared to a regular lane you have the whole thing to yourself most of the time, and are a whole lane away from the fumes coming out of the less well maintained and more densely packed cars.
A comment from a “professional” cycling advocate here (I volunteer about 10h a week for Cycle Action Auckland). I originally was very much on the side of the “on road cycling” movement. As a traffic engineer, I know all the arguments against off-road paths (especially when they cross side roads), and sharing with pedestrians (especially when you share with fast cyclists or large numbers of peds, like on Tamaki Drive).
And after several years of advocacy in Auckland, I – and to a degree, Cycle Action Auckland – have decided that on-road cycling improvemenst (cycle lanes, advanced stop boxes, the lot) – isn’t going to get cycling back into the mainstream. Joshua has made the point very well – PERCEIVED safety is, paradoxically, as (or more) important than real safety.
Accordingly, I, and we, have shifted our emphasis somewhat. While we will still argue for cycle lanes where possible and suitable, we increasingly are pushing for off-road paths. We need to give people an environment where they aren’t constantly feeling stressed. If they have to go through 1 or 2 difficult intersections at the start and end, that can be okay – but we need to give more people a commute or recreational ride option where they can relax. Otherwise, we can argue “cycling is safe, cycling is fun” until we’re old and weary, and yet won’t lift cycling above the current 1% mode share.
So we now consider it imperative that Auckland gets a “backbone” network of what we call “radial routes” – routes that are preferably along corridors like rail or motorways (no sideroads or driveway crossings!) and that will allow us to lift cycling until we get back into percentages that allow us to push for more cycling-friendly environments elsewhere. Cycle Action (myself and Barbara Cuthbert) recently did a big presentation to the Auckland Council Transport Committee that was well received – of course that was only the beginning. We now have to advocate for spending the (little cycling) money (that exists) where it is of most use. And in my/our opinion, that’s primarily on off-road routes like the northwestern, or on SEPARATED on-road cycle – like this one lanes http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copenhagen_Style_Bike_Lane_2.jpg
Thanks for your input Max. In writing this post I was particularly interested in what cycling advocates such as yourself would think of this issue.
i can understand where you are coming from, but i still think that cycling on the road (preferably a painted shoulder where cars aren’t allowed to park) is an important part of the mix. the other major parts are cycling along continuous dedicated tracks with few intersections (next to motorways, railway lines and through parks, etc) and using back streets effectively.
btw, i was shocked when i heard that the NW cycleway is a cycleway in name only. if pedestrians are allowed to wander down it and not keep left, it is way too dangerous to cycle on at any real speed.
Tochgi – of course cycle lanes are important – but we feel that a) there are other measures of higher priority, and b) when we build cycle lanes, we should build them as raised or kerb-separated lanes whenever possible.
Otherwise, we risk creating an environment like around Manukau Central. Lots of cycle lanes – but no cyclists. No wonder, because what novice cyclist (and few experienced cyclists) wants to cycle next to six lanes of heavy traffic.
As for the Northwestern – that’s just reality speaking. Unless you put fences, gates and guards on it, you cannot expect a cycleway through suburban areas to STAY all-cycles. Making pedestrians illegal there is just not going to work. Yes, I know some commuters like to speed at 30+ km/h, but in reality, they will have to slow down a bit when passing people. The long stretches such as between Pt Chev and Lincoln are still essentially ped-free, because there are few people walking 5km distances!
I think another big barrier to people cycling more is air and noise pollution. This sounds silly but it is actually a big issue for me. When I decide, for example, not to cycle into uni at rush hour part of my reasons for doing that are around safety. But the others are around not wanting to have a qualitatively unpleasant experience – that is biking up and down Symmonds Street behind buses, on a noisy street inhaling clouds of black fumes.
I don’t know if people consciously think about the noise and fumes but I think it is a big part of the overall cycling experience which makes people who do try once or twice enjoy it less. That’s part of why I think we need more off-road or separated on-road cycle ways. They help not just with the perception of safety but they also give you a much more pleasant, enjoyable experience. It is much nicer to take the empty, quiet, clean bike path alongside the North Western than to cycle up Dominion Road in heavy traffic with people cutting across you etc…
and more showers in workplaces, bike parking and ramps would also help. Cycle around auckalnd for half a day and you suddenly realize what a shit city it must be for people in wheelchairs….
Another perception thing – a recent Sydney study actually showed that cyclists in the Sydney CBD breathed in LESS pollution that car drivers. But that’s a bit hard to convey, because for some people it’s counter-intuitive.
I am coming around to this line of thinking. Start with dedicated infrastructure for commuters and recreational cyclists to make it accessible to the average person, grow the mode out of it’s tiny niche, then once it is starting to ‘normalise’ focus on the day to day acceptance of cycling on normal roads.
Again to cite Melbourne, here there is basically a cycle path along every freeway, rail and river corridor. This would be easy and cheap to achieve in Auckland (in comparison to any other mode), really the design characteristics of a 2.5m wide concrete bike path aren’t very extreme and they could be slotted in quite comfortably. A couple of the river trails in Melbourne get fairly steep and windy in parts, but that adds to the fun right! However they are popular, the main Yarra trail carries over 250 cyclists an hour on weekday mornings, all for the cost of a few million. How much would it cost to add 250 cars at peak hour to the adjacent freeway I wonder?
I wonder why one wasn’t constructed along with the northern busway for example, or why there isn’t one in the southern corridor. Anyone riding a southern line train can see there is several metres of clear corridor alongside.
One thing somebody noted on the CBT board is that the rail electrification project necessitates a basic access road to be formed alongside each of the rail lines to install the masts and overhead wires. While these would be maintained in the most part for service access, it was suggested that these could be easily converted to double as cycleways with simple paving.
Max, is this something you are aware of? How would cheap cycleways along the Southern, Eastern and Western rail lines fit in with your direction?
Hi Nick, the cost issue always rears its head. It would be a tiny part of the overall budget, but with PT funds being so tight in Auckland, those opportunities for Synergies are rarely explored, because Councils and KiwiRail and AT can barely make the case to government to get enough money for them alone. The only areas where we currently have more success is getting cycleways included in new motorway projects (don’t call me on some of the projects though because the planning was done years ago and built only now – some of those don’t have cycleways).
Also, you will find that authorities like KiwiRail and NZTA are careful before they “give up” any part of their designation for anything BUT a new rail line or traffic lanes. Which is fair enough in some ways, but makes getting agreement on a cycleway much harder.
In a more positive vein, there are a number of studies that have shown where cycleways could be built along rail lines and motorways, and as soon as the will is there, we can indeed build them. Cycle Action is in fact advocating for these paths – for example in our recent presentation to Auckland Council we advocated for paths (which already have been studied to a preliminary level by NZTA) along SH1 in North Shore, along the Eastern Railway Line between Hobson Bay and Glen Innes, and along SH1 between Ellerslie and Otahuhu. None of these are confirmed at this stage of course, but some are much further along in planning than mere “visions”.
As for the work access roads being converted into cycleways, we’d love that, have had some initial inquries, and hope that by the end of the electrification works, some of those can indeed be converted.
While trying to avoid the ‘great debate’ of cycling (on-road, off-road, separated, etc.) there are a few things about the cycling environment in Auckland worth considering.
The Auckland road network is in uncoordinated morass- large, unconnected blocks, arterials with unlimited driveways,intersections blown out by crazy engineering standards, and bus lanes haphazardly applied in an attempt to retool the infrastructure. Also related is the physical form of residential development, large lot residential development, that limits any significant opportunities to do anything but drive everywhere. Check your local Walk Score for reference.
So where does that lead us in making cycling feel safer? Here’s where I would start:
1. Slow traffic in every neighborhood and the CBD to 40k. It’s immoral with the evidence we have of incident severity to have a speed limit set at 50k in neighborhoods.
2. Fix residential intersections. Add stop signs with crosswalks everywhere (currently there is no equivalent standard comparable to a North American crosswalk).
3. Fix arterial intersections. Eliminate left-turn slip lanes. Also eliminate the additional lane that is added at every arterial intersection. This increases pedestrian crossing times significantly, allows imprudent drivers advantages (the asshole lane), causes merge issues, and limits bike or bus priority options.
4. Address priority segments of the proposed bike network. These are places that cyclists can simply not avoid- Bond Street bridge, Symonds St, College Hill. etc. Gold plate these road for cyclists. Stop signs along intersecting streets, painted bike lanes that avoid car doors, bike signs, etc.
5. Fix intersections, part 2. Eliminate unnecessary turning options eg. where the middle lane can go straight or turn right. Eliminate the left turn arrow- this is one of the leading causes of incidents.
6. Simplify the lane design and in some cases reduce lanes. Many arterials have lanes that appear, disappear, turn into bus lanes, then parking spaces. Sort this out. The rule: simple, intuitive, and consistent. Many arterial roads are way over-engineered for their volume. One-lane each direction will suffice for most streets in Auckland.
6. Add painted bike lanes that allow for space for car doors opening.
7. Add regular stop lights along crazy-long arterials like Dominion Rd, Great North Rd. Sandringham Rd, etc.
I’ve been cycling daily for 4 years since moving to Auckland. I don’t see how cycle ‘backbones’, routes along motorways, or get across the bridge schemes will help me and my seven year old get around town by bike. I want to ride into the CBD to work. The family wants to ride across town together for breakfast, or to a nearby park. We need to retool our neighborhoods and local streets in the most basic levels before we can dream about separated bike lanes.
Morecityplease – I/we agree with many, even most of your proposed changes! However, in a way you aren’t the one who needs help first – you ALREADY cycle. Your improvement suggestions, unless they were consistent on a whole route, will not encourage novices to cycle – not if halfway along, there’s three big intimidating intersections (even if they have cycle lanes – see my comment about Manukau Central above!). Those novices will literally turn back and say “I’ve had it! Too scary!”.
An off-road cycleway will allow them to get confidence. Don’t forget that many of these people have NO experience in riding a bike (often for decades). This was struck home to me with my new girlfriend last year. She had not been on a bike for 20 years before meeting me. She is WOBBLY on a bike, still. Such people don’t go out on Great North Road to “try cycling to work”. Doing things like making 20% of the route into a 30km/h zone and improving two intersections will help you and me. But not get them on bikes. We need to give them something better to coax them back.
Max, I agree we need to get people on bikes to help change attitudes, and in turn get more infrastructure. However, I think you missed Morecityplease’ point. There needs to be better road design everywhere, that makes cycling safer. We need the type of cyclists that are just doing there every day activities, like getting milk, and seeing friends. Most of these short trips will be far from any off road cycle arteries, and will be on normal streets like 99.9% of Auckland. There are already plenty of places where people can ride around in circles and get there skills up. By putting up gated segregated cycleways instead of fixing road design we risk sending the message that “cycling is dangerous so we have built these special zones where it is safe”. Why can’t it just be safe everywhere?
Alan, I am not missing morecityplease’s point at all. In fact, about 70% out of my 10-plus hours of volunteering a week, I do exactly that – educate, chase, encourage, submit, discuss, explain, show our city’s politicians and engineers how their various roading projects and parts of the city can be made safer and more pleasant for cyclists by localised improvements and better design.
However, many of these improvements can be paid out of road-safety budgets and road upgrade budgets (and with our current funding regime, have to be, because there is just about NO dedicated cycle funding available – for your information, cycling AND walking currently get 0.7% of all funding!).
So when we are talking about the small pots of actually Cycling (with a capital C) money available, we’d prefer that to go for off-road cycleways. Because you cannot create such a cycleway from the “minor safety improvements” budget.
“Why can’t it just be safe everywhere?”
Because we spent decades making it unsafe, and we can’t reverse it overnight. We need to chose what gets us the best results with very limited money, otherwise we risk politicians giving up on cycling funding again when the results of scattergun spending end up being lackluster.
Hi Max,
I seem to always hear the same excuses here in Auckland about lack of funding, etc. Regardless of whether the budget set aside for cycling is 0.7%, they still have budgets for roadworks and when you have the ground open you can narrow a road, reduce lanes,etc. How much money does it take to put some paint down. Another thing I would like to see is pilot projects here in Auckland. In Vancouver, cycle lanes have been created overnight as pilot projects without public consultation as thus are given a fair chance. The thing with pilot projects is after awhile people get used to them and they stay. The Burrard Street Bridge in Vancouver went from 6 lanes to 4 lanes overnight, a pilot project adding a concrete barrier for protected cycle lanes into the downtown. People said it would cause traffic chaos and would be a major inconvenience, but almost two years later it is still there, people have found other ways into the city. So lets get more pilot projects in Auckland!
CB, exactly what I said – if we try do things with the limited cycling budgets only, we will fail to make any significant impact. Cycling must be mainstream enough to simply feature in any road upgrade or change, and that is one of the many things we are fighting for.
But while that goes on, we are also working on high-profile key infrastructure for cycling. Because flagship projects can provide impetus to the whole movement if they succeed, in a way that a more dispersed improvement cannot. Britomart was – eventually – seen as the turning point for rail. Which then resulted in a lot of dispersed and gradual changes, as other train stations were upgraded one by one, tracks duplicated and replaced, and finally, the electrification started. We’d like to create a situation where politicians, faced with the “Why are you wasting money on such a marginal thing like cycling, nobody does it!” complaint can turn around and say “Actually, last year we opened route X, and it is booming.”
Also, I agree with your pilot project idea – like what Jarbury /admin has been proposing for Queen Street closures (just trial them temporarily).
Oh, and to clarify – we aren’t seeking “places where people can ride around in circles”. All the routes we propose for prioritisation are located so as to be highly attractice for commuters, like the SH1 route in North Shore (and, where possible, also have appeal for recreational riders – like the Waterview cycleway, or a further upgraded/extended Twin Streams pathway system in Waitakere, which are highly useful for both groups).
Yes, the ability for novices to ride off-road paths without being amped on fear adrenaline is a key feature – but these are not routes for the sake of building routes. They are key cycling transport links.
Just found this Urban Bikeway Design Guideline: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/
Very good stuff!
Okay, I’m very late to the party and this is hardly on the elevated plane of discussion on evidence through most of the thread, but here is my suggestion on how to make the standard painted cycle lane safer: green reflective cateyes all the way along.
At present along routes such as the cycleway past Unitec on Carrington Road cars can easily drift into the cycle lane (due to angle of the road, inattention, going round cars turning right across the centreline etc) without any physical warning that they’re moving into another traffic lane.
On motorways, lanes are marked with cat eyes because high speeds require drivers to think hard about staying in a lane and only crossing over at a safe time. The same principle should be used on cycle lanes given the general speed differential between cyclists and cars and the risk to the former.
Put cateyes in along every on-road cycle lane in Auckland and drivers will *feel* when they enter a cycle lane; they’ll be more reluctant to do so and will develop a sense of where they need to position themselves safely on the road, simply out of habit. At night they will see the lane in their headlights and will continue to compensate for it. Less drivers visibly drifting into cycle lanes = both greater perceived and *actual* safety for cyclists = more people on bicycles.
Obviously physically separated lanes are better still but I think this would be an inexpensive way to render the ubiquitous green strips that much safer.
Thoughts?
Or how about rumble strips instead, that would be constant while cats eyes are fairly widely spaced.
You’re right, that would work much better. Only disadvantage is it won’t glow a pretty green by night
So, who do we write to?